8 December 2013
From the Daily Maverick
07 DEC 2013 10:11 (SOUTH AFRICA)
The deaths of great men and women are public affairs. It is easy to imagine being asked, in some future year, “Where were you when Nelson Mandela died?” Where I was, was a pitiful reminder of the ongoing struggle for liberation.
I am writing this on Friday morning, a cold and grey morning after. I don’t know how a reader might answer the question – whether you were listening to the radio, or watching the television; whether you were alone, or with family, or with friends – but I do know where I was last night, at a quarter to midnight.
The lobby of the Johannesburg Central Police Station is not a welcoming place at any time – but the hours around midnight are particularly bleak. The light is harsh and medicinal. The uniformed men behind the counter are tired, disinterested, and suspicious. A woman in a blood-stained shirt rests her head against her forearms while she waits for someone to notice her, to speak to her. Earlier, a man collapsed and lay there, writhing, un-noticed and un-aided.
I was there with my husband, and with a dozen of his colleagues. We were there because Nomzamo Zondo, an attorney at the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI), had been arrested that afternoon while trying to enforce a new order of the Constitutional Court. That order had been handed down at 14.30 in the afternoon, and interdicted the Johannesburg police from interfering with about two thousand of the city’s informal traders. These traders had won the right to return to their stalls, and resume trading until further notice.
At about 17.00, Nomzamo was called to the corner of Hoek and De Villiers Streets, in the Joburg CBD. Officers of the Johannesburg Municipal Police Division (JMPD) were harassing traders who had heard of the court victory and set up their stalls. Once there, Nomzamo tried to tell the JMPD officers about the court’s order.
Then they arrested her.
The afternoon’s euphoria collapsed in an evening of disillusion. The Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss the city of Johannesburg’s cynical arguments about the ‘convenience’ of removing traders from the city’s streets – regardless of the personal costs – represented a victory for compassion and common-sense. It proved that our system could work: that everyone can get representation and can be vindicated. It proved that people’s rights must trump the city’s convenience in the new South Africa – and that the exercise of political and administrative power would not be allowed to proceed untrammelled.
And then, about two hours later, Nomzamo was arrested trying to enforce it.
The arresting officers showed an absolute disdain for the Court’s ruling. They told her that the JMPD ‘does not take orders from civilians.’
Perhaps they meant that they did not take orders from her. Perhaps they meant that they would not take orders from the Constitutional Court itself. I don’t know.
Nor does anyone else.
Last, night, the JPMD’s spokesman told the media: “As for today’s court ruling, the JMPD will be advised by the legal department of Johannesburg.” Which seems to imply that he and the police imagine that there may be an available option other than immediate compliance.
He also admitted that the JMPD had been sent in force to disrupt informal trading, and that they had used rubber bullets to dislodge the traders.
He told the media that Nomzamo had been arrested because she had been “inciting traders to act against officers.”
He could give no details of how she had been doing so. Neither could the police at Johannesburg Central – the old John Vorster Square. In the hours that followed, lawyers remonstrated with the cops to little effect. Nomzamo was held in a back office, her wrists cut and bruised from handcuffs. She had one shoe on – the other had come off as the police had wrestled her into the back of their vehicle.
She was refused police bail, which meant that she had to apply for prosecutorial bail – which could only be discussed once she had been charged, and if a prosecutor was willing to come out in the evening. For hours, the police could not identify an investigating officer; nor could they say what she would be charged with. Maybe this is not unusual – but it is surprising for an attorney to be arrested in the course of her duties, refused access to her own lawyers for hours, to have bail denied and delayed, and for charges to be so slowly drawn up.
Around about 22:00 we were told that Nomzamo would be charged with Public Violence and with Malicious Damage to Property. No one could give us the specifics of the charges – what violence? What property? – perhaps because there were no such specifics to give. Regardless, charging her meant that the system could resume and – over the next two hours – a R500 bail was negotiated.
Just before midnight, Nomzamo walked out the station – shaken, tired, cut and bruised around her wrists, and missing one of her shoes.
After she left, as we were waiting for a taxi to take us from the police station back to our own home, the news of Mandela’s death came through.
It’s hard not to think about legacies in moments like this – and hard not to ask what has become of Mandela’s legacy, two decades after he became South Africa’s first black president.
Nomzamo’s ordeal – mild as it may have been, in comparison to many others’ – was pointless, a brute exercise of the police’s power to intimidate those who challenge them. Hundreds of men and women without Nomzamo’s access to lawyers, to activists, and to the media are arrested on equally specious charges.
Johannesburg’s informal traders are back on the street this morning. Already, rumours of police harassment are spreading. I can’t believe that much time will pass before the next arrests, and the ones after that; the next court case, and the one after that; the next attempt to force the city and its police forces to obey the law – to respect ‘civilians’ and civilian authority, to respect the rights of Johannesburg’s poor citizens as much as the rights of its richer ones.
Nomzamo appeared at the Magistrate’s Court in the morning, and all charges against her were dropped because they had no prospects of success.
If we want to look for Mandela’s legacy, we cannot simply look at what has been achieved – because, for all of the massive changes since 1994, we simply have not succeeded in creating a just society in which the state serves all its citizens.
Instead, we have look at people like Nomzamo and the traders she represents. These are people who have dedicated their lives to struggle – whether it is the struggle to help, support, and represent South Africa’s poor or whether its is the struggle for personal dignity, self-respect, and recognition.
This is Mandela’s legacy. A legacy of struggle – public and personal, political and private. The state he once led still, often, fails to live up to his ideals and his example. But that doesn’t mean that we should accept its failures as normal, unremarkable, and inevitable. Neither does it mean that we should despair in the face of the state’s failures – its violence, its corruption, its recalcitrance.
It means that we have to embrace Mandela’s life of struggle as our legacy. We have to continue to fight for our own dignity, and for the dignities of others. We can no longer rely on the distant figure of Madiba to reassure us of our country’s successes, and to remind us of the ideals on which our South Africa was founded.
It means that we have to act and struggle for ourselves, now.
When someone asks me, ten years from now, where I was when Mandela died, I hope that my answer will not be, “Watching the police abuse their power,” but, instead: “Watching someone else pick up the struggle where Mandela left off.”DM
Julian Brown is a lecturer in the Department of Political Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand.
From Daily Maverick
Social and Economic Rights Institute (SERI) lawyer Nomzamo Zondo was arrested on Thursday as she was assisting informal traders in Johannesburg’s inner-city. While informal traders are still fighting Mayor Parks Tau’s Operation Clean Sweep, battling for the right to make a living and have their rights protected, Zondo’s arrest shows just how far the police are willing to go. As it turns out, very far.
Zondo is one of SERI’s lawyers who regularly represent those whose rights have been denied by a system skewed against them. The Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that the City of Johannesburg could not stop traders from returning to their places of work. Thousands of informal traders have been cleared off the streets after Operation Clean Sweep saw Metro Police confiscating goods and allegedly assaulting them for trading.
SERI has been involved in the case and Zondo was helping some of the traders. They were jubilant after the ruling and according to Phumlani Ndlovu, deputy chair of the South African Informal Traders Forum, they were even giving away goods for free. The City has said it will continue to crack down on trading (only those traders deemed legal and part of the case can return to their stalls) and Metro Police reportedly assumed that they had started working again.
To stop the trading, Metro Police shot rubber bullets, said Ndlovu, injuring four people. The traders called Zondo for help. When she tried to intervene she was allegedly assaulted and arrested by the cops. Zondo was supposed to be on TV on Thursday night for an interview regarding the informal traders win. Instead, she was locked up after an apparently brutal arrest.
Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) spokesperson Wayne Minaar said she was arrested on charges of obstructing justice and assisting traders to act against officers. “JMPD will continue with its legal mandate to clear and observe traders until advised otherwise by the legal department of the City of Johannesburg,” said Minaar.
Late on Thursday evening, SERI’s Kate Tissington said that apparently Zondo was being denied bail. She hopes a prosecutor is available so that Zondo can get bail. (Zondo has a 5-month old baby that she is breastfeeding.)
SERI has before accused the Metro Police of brutally arresting people with impunity during Clean Sweep. In a chilling press release two weeks ago, the organisation detailed the story of Belinda (not her real name). “On Friday at around 12:00 Belinda and a group of other traders were approached near Kerk Street by more than 30 JMPD officers. Belinda saw JMPD officials chasing people away and taking bribes. Belinda also saw them assault another female trader by kicking her with booted feet. She took photographs of both these incidents on her cell phone. Another female trader reported being hit, slapped and sworn at by the police,” said SERI.
The account continued: “The JMPD officers approached Belinda, who took the photos, and confiscated her cell phone, saying that ‘she was making as if she was a journalist’ and must go home. When Belinda approached them to ask for her phone back, they told her that she was under arrest because ‘it is illegal to take photos of the police doing their job’.”
SERI accused the police of violence and xenophobia. “The police then drove around with Belinda and a number of other arrested traders, and she witnessed JMPD officers confiscating mannequins outside a clothing shop, and the owner paying money to the officials to return them. Eventually they were driven to the JMPD station at Faraday Street where they were handcuffed with their hands behind their backs, spat on and further verbally and physically assaulted. Throughout this ordeal, the traders were subject to xenophobic abuse. One trader was told that that the JMPD ‘would drag her with the car like the other guy from Maputo’. Belinda was told that ‘all of this is Mandela’s fault for having married Graca,’” said SERI.
The Constitutional Court disagreed with a South Gauteng High Court ruling last week that found in favour of the City. Some of the traders will be allowed to go back to the streets. But the issue, and the allegations of police violence, will surely return to court. DM
Update: Zondo was released late on Thursday night on R500 bail and ordered to appear in court on Friday.
From City Press
Mere hours after a Constitutional Court hearing this afternoon cleared street traders to return to their old spots in Johannesburg, the JMPD once again clashed with them and arrested their lawyer.
The incident occurred shortly before 6pm when a group of traders wanted to celebrate their victory by returning to their trading spots. A “huge contingent” of both JMPD and SAPS officers arrived to remove them. According to one trader representative up to a hundred traders were present.
The JMPD then arrested Nomzama Zondo, an attorney from the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (Seri) who has been representing the street traders in their court battle with the city. She was taken to the Johannesburg Central police station and is being charged with obstructing the police in their duties, she told City Press by SMS from the station.
When contacted for comment, Wayne Minnaar, the JMPD’s spokesperson, read City Press the “official response”.
“The JMPD has a legal mandate to enforce bylaws of the city. As for today’s court ruling, the JMPD will be advised by the legal department of Johannesburg.”
Zondo is also to be charged with “inciting traders to act against officers,” he told City Press.
Minnaar said the traders were attempting to set up in spaces that had never been demarcated trading areas, not even before Operation Clean Sweep. As a result they were contravening bylaws despite the ConCourt ruling in their favour, he said.
Minnaar admitted that it was a “huge contingent” of officers, but says the crowd of traders was also very large.
He also confirmed that the crowd was dispersed with rubber bullets.
According to Matron Mahlangu, an organiser for the African Traders Organisation and the Workers Socialist Party, two people were also hit with rubber bullets in a confrontation near the corner of De Villiers and King George streets in the inner city, near the Noord Street Taxi rank.
Full article at http://www.citypress.co.za/news/joburg-hawkers-lawyer-arrested/
From Mail & Guardian
05 DEC 2013 17:07 MANQOBA NXUMALO
Johannesburg street traders hugged, sang and screamed with joy when the Constitutional Court ruled they could be allowed back to trade in the city.
Johannesburg street traders hugged, sang and screamed with joy when the Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday they could be allowed back to trade in the city.
They were evicted from the Johannesburg city centre in October as part of the city’s “Operation Clean Sweep”.
The judgment follows a review application filed by the South African Informal Trading Forum (SAITF) and the South African National Retail Alliance (Sanra), who were assisted by lawyers instructed by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (Seri). They wanted the court to set aside a judgment by the high court in Johannesburg, authored by Judge Ramarumo Monama, which dismissed the traders’ application for lack of urgency.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the legal traders who had approached the court for interim and urgent relief – at least 2 168 of them – should not be harassed by the city and that they must be allowed to return to trade from their stalls.
Their main application, which asks the high court to rule on the legality of the evictions in general, will be heard next year. However, this does not mean that all those who were removed from the city will be allowed back – the judgment applies only to the 2 168 members of Sanra and the SAITF.
An excited Edmund Ellias, the Sanra spokesperson, said outside the court that the traders would not even wait a day to get back to work.
“Some of our members are already back in the streets. For those who are legal traders but were not part of the application, a window of opportunity has been opened. They can now approach the court and ask to be reinstated as well,” Ellias said.
The traders, mostly women, were emotional and at times appeared uneasy during the lengthy submissions.
Their anxiety reached fever pitch when the court asked for a break to allow the City of Johannesburg’s lawyer, Gcinumuzi Malindi SC, to take further instruction on an amicable solution to the hawkers’ plight. He had conceded that the city had acted illegally in removing legal traders from their stalls.
Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke advised him to consult his client about a possible solution, particularly in reinstating all the legal traders, as it was evident that the city had acted in contravention of the law.
Malindi conceded that it was “convenient” for the city to evict both lawful and unlawful traders from the inner city centre. Moseneke interjected: “Did counsel just say ‘convenient’? Just deal with what is lawful, not what is convenient.”
Malindi consulted the city but told the court that his client was unwavering: it did not want the traders back unless they had been verified by the city in line with its ongoing process of re-registration.
Meanwhile, the traders were being briefed regularly by Seri’s attorney, Nomzamo Zondo, who interpreted the legal jargon for those unable to follow it. However, when the court asked for a break to make a final decision, the traders gathered in a huddle and began to pray.
When the verdict was announced, Zondo burst into tears. “We have been vindicated,” she said. “Now our clients can get back to trade because they were legal anyway,” she said.
From Times Live
Sapa | 05 December, 2013 15:01
The Constitutional Court ruled that informal traders in Johannesburg’s CBD can return to their trading spots, the SA Informal Traders Forum (Saitf) said.
“The ruling was that all the traders that were removed by the City of Johannesburg can now resume trading,” Saitf deputy chairman Phumulani Ndlovu said.
The city was ordered to pay the costs of the application. He said the court ordered the city not to interfere with informal traders operating on the streets.
Last Wednesday, the High Court in Johannesburg ruled that the application by the traders to return to their trading spots was not urgent.
The hawkers were represented by the SA National Traders and Retail Alliance (Santra) and Saitf. They asked the high court to order the city to allow them to return to the pavements of the inner city to trade.
They were removed so the city could verify how many informal traders were operating in the central business district, but were not permitted to return.
Santra and the Saitf approached the Constitutional Court, seeking an order for the hawkers to return to the sites where they previously traded.
From Mail & Guardian
05 DEC 2013 12:19 SARAH EVANS
The City of Jo’burg has admitted in court that lawful informal traders were removed from the streets along with illegal ones in Operation Clean Sweep.
The City of Jo’burg has admitted that lawful informal traders were removed along with alleged illegal traders during the city’s controversial “Operation Clean Sweep”, currently before the Constitutional Court.
Counsel for the city argued on Thursday that it was “convenient” for the city to remove both categories of traders, so that it could establish which traders were trading illegally.
Deputy chief justice Dikgang Mosekene intervened: “Did counsel really just say ‘convenient’? … Can we just stick to what was lawful, not what was convenient.”
The South African Informal Traders Forum (SAITF) and the South African National Traders Retail Association (Santra) approached the court on Thursday, seeking leave to appeal against a high court judgment that ruled their application for relief from Operation Clean Sweep was not urgent.
The applicants told the Constitutional Court that their main relief application would not be heard in the high court before February, by which time “irreparable” harm would have been caused to the thousands of traders who have been evicted from the inner city.
They want to be allowed to return to their trading stalls until their main relief application is heard.
But the city argued that the court should not intervene. The city argued that any prejudice against the traders was temporary, and would only last as long as it took to verify the traders operating legally.
Paul Kennedy, SC, for the SAITF, argued that although it was unusual for the Constitutional Court to intervene in a case such as this, the circumstances were exceptional, and it was not unlawful or improper for the court to do so.
In its application, the SAITF argued that the applicants were trading “lawfully, peacefully and with the [city’s] consent” until they were evicted and had their goods confiscated by the city and the Johannesburg Metro Police Department (JMPD) during October 2013.
“They [the city] say the clean sweep is necessary to deal with illegal traders, but the respondents have never suggested that any of the traders in this application were trading illegally.
“Indeed, Operation Clean Sweep made no attempt whatsoever to distinguish between the traders, who have always been doing business legally, and other informal traders who may not have been.”
The traders say that, after “extensive” negotiations with the city, they agreed to a process of “verification”, when all the traders would re-register as lawful traders. They would then be allowed to return to their stalls.
The traders say they re-registered themselves, as agreed, during the week of November 4, but when they tried to return to their stalls, they were assaulted by JMPD officers, who also dismantled their stalls.
Now the city has told the traders that it wants to “relocate” the traders, but the traders say the city has not complied with any of the requirements in section 6A of the Business Act, which says that the city must consult before informal traders are relocated.
From SA Breaking News
Posted by: Jamie-Leigh Matroos Posted date: December 5, 2013
Johannesburg – Informal traders in the Johannesburg CBD have turned to the Constitutional Court after their application to continue trading was deemed “not urgent” by the Johannesburg High Court.
The Constitutional Court will hear an urgent application on Thursday, requesting an interim order allowing informal traders to keep doing business in the CBD.
The vendors filed an urgent application on the 19th of November, requesting that they be permitted to trade in a manner consistent with sections 9 and 10 of the City’s Informal Trading By-Laws, at the locations they occupied immediately before their removal.
The traders appeared in the Johannesburg High Court on the 26th of November, but the High Court ruled the matter is not urgent and postponed it to next year.
This caused further outrage among traders who say they have no means to make a living unless they can continue to trade.
The traders took to the streets of Johannesburg in protest. The group attacked businesses in the CBD saying if they cannot earn a living, other businesses have no right to. Traders threw stones and beat shop keepers forcing them to close their shops.
One man was reportedly beaten with sticks and nearly had his shop looted for refusing to close.
Informal traders have been left jobless for several weeks after the City of Johannesburg declared unlicensed traders may no longer sell their wares in the city centre. The City launched Operation Clean Sweep to remove the traders, claiming this measure is part of a crime reduction strategy. According to reports in the media while Operation Clean Sweep is meant to remove only unlicensed traders, those with legitimate licenses have also been targeted.
BY JONATHAN CRUSH, DECEMBER 05 2013, 05:57
APART from destroying the livelihoods of informal traders, the City of Johannesburg’s “cleansing” operation is also sure to lead to rising hunger levels among the city’s poor, who rely on these food sellers for their daily purchases.
Research by the African Food Security Urban Network (Afsun) in 11 cities in nine countries found that the informal sector plays a critical role in making food available to the urban poor.
Afsun’s researchers have found that the majority of vendors of food sold on the streets of surveyed cities in Southern Africa are women who head households, mostly single mothers, and more than half of these women have no other source of household income.
While food bought on the street may be more expensive than that on supermarket shelves, it is the choice of the urban poor because of geographical access. Increased proximity and physical access is by no means equal to real or actual access, taking into account factors including transport costs and the inconsistent provision of electricity. The provision of electricity in many informal areas is at best unreliable and often nonexistent, and without refrigeration fresh food has to be bought daily.
In the urban context, food accessibility and dietary quality are the critical determinants of household and individual nutritional status. Afsun’s 2008-09 baseline food security survey showed that 75% of households in the poorer urban areas of 11 cities were food-insecure. However, less than 10% of these households reported that they often experienced an absolute shortage of food. Rather, they ate smaller meals or fewer meals a day in response to a lack of resources to purchase food. Many more households said they often did not eat their preferred diet, ate food that they did not like and ate a diet that lacked diversity. Dietary diversity scores are in fact very low, indicating that undernutrition in the urban context may be as much about what people can afford to eat as how much they can eat.
Analysis of the data from the Afsun survey shows that households headed by women score worse than their male counterparts on many food-security indicators, including dietary diversity and the number of months of adequate household food provisioning. This is clearly related to the greater poverty of households where women are the primary breadwinners and caregivers. Lower income and more precarious employment and livelihoods are major factors in this disparity.
In cities including Johannesburg and Cape Town, the vending of cooked food was found to provide a major source of employment, income and nutritional intake for the urban poor. These hot “street foods” prepared by vendors at their stalls or on pavements are generally cheaper than the formal fast-food equivalent. Because informal markets, street traders, food vendors and spazas are an essential income source for many urban households, the way in which the sector is regulated has a direct effect on availability and access to cheap food.
Income from these businesses has a significant effect on household livelihoods and many informal traders employ people in their businesses. If the government wants to pay more than lip service to job creation and the need to increase women’s economic empowerment, then it would do well to encourage this trade, which Afsun research shows is dominated by women and provides them with a significant degree of economic independence.
Nearly 90% of the rise in urban poverty due to the global increase in food prices is from poor households becoming even poorer rather than from households falling into poverty. The 2007-08 escalation in the cost of staple foods caused household food insecurity to grow rapidly and high unemployment levels are still eroding the purchasing power of many households. A recent World Bank study of the effects of food prices on poverty levels indicated that in many African countries the urban poor are more badly affected than the rural poor.
The Department of Agriculture has already acknowledged that 12-million South Africans go to bed hungry every night. Most of these people live in cities and need affordable and accessible food to lead any kind of productive life. If the government at all levels is serious about wanting to alleviate this poverty, it needs to stop its cynical treatment of informal vendors, equating them with litter in “street cleansing” programmes, and create an enabling environment for those who provide cheap and nutritious food for the urban poor.
BY FRANNY RABKIN, 05 DECEMBER 2013, 14:21
JOHANNESBURG’s lawful informal traders will know by 3pm whether they will be entitled to go back to their stalls on the streets of the inner city and continue trading, after a morning of argument in the Constitutional Court.
Members of the South African Informal Traders Forum and South African National Traders Retail Association, some of whom have lawfully traded on Johannesburg’s streets for more than 20 years, had been removed as part of the city’s “Operation Clean Sweep” — an initiative to rid the city of illegal hawkers.
After they were turned away by the high court, which struck their case off the roll saying it was not urgent, they went urgently to the Constitutional Court.
Counsel for the forum Paul Kennedy SC said the city had, in trying to clean up the city of illegal traders, removed all the traders — including the lawful ones — without any law authorising it to do so.
Because of what the city had done, the traders were now “truly in a state of absolute crisis”, he said.
“These are people who, despite the problems of bad education under apartheid, despite the problems of unemployment, crafted for themselves, out of their own resources, viable businesses,” he said.
He argued that even though it was highly unusual for the highest court to intervene in the case at this point there were exceptional circumstances, because, realistically, the high court would only be able to hear their appeal in February, which was too late.
Counsel for the association Chris Georgiades agreed, saying the city had an obligation to protect its citizens. Instead, he said, it had done the opposite: it had abused the traders and treated them like criminals.
Counsel for the city Gcina Malindi SC faced a barrage of questions from the Constitutional Court bench, eventually saying he was “constrained to concede” that the city had not followed the right procedures when it came to the lawful traders.
However, after going back to his client to see if the city was willing to settle, Mr Malindi told the court the city would not settle, but was willing to allow those traders who had been verified as lawful, after the start of Operation Clean Sweep, to go back to their trading positions.
But Mr Kennedy’s junior counsel, Steven Budlender, said this was not enough. He said the city had itself admitted that they had all been lawful traders and to avoid further litigation, the court should order that all of the forum’s and the association’s members be allowed back.
Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke said the court would decide on an order by 3pm.